PlayStation Vue Limited Launch

[+Asmodai MVC]

PlayStation Vue should launch in New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia within two weeks with plans to go nationwide by the end of the year.

 

source

[+Asmodai MVC]

Looks like today is the day!

 

source

[soniqstylz]

Holy ###### $50-70 / month?

 

Ummm.....

[Brian M. Veteran]

For $70 you might as well keep your cable plan.

[Showan]

Holy ###### $50-70 / month?

 

Ummm.....

 

Let's hope this isn't the case.

 

$50-$70 monthly not worth it.  If true then Vue is going to be stillborn...

 

The sweet spot has to be the $25-$30 range.

 

A la carte' would be the preferred, but we know that's not going to happen any time soon.

[soniqstylz]

Looking at this review from Wired, the cost is bad but not that bad (in comparison to SlingTV).    http://www.wired.com/2015/03/playstation-vue-slick-pricey-streaming-service/

 

Sling starts at $20 for 17 channels, offers upgrades to 47 channels for $45

Vue starts at $50 for 55 channels, offers upgrades to 80+ channels.

 

Vue has a better UI (according to Wired) and offers cloud-based DVR.

Sling has ESPN / ABC, Vue does not.  Vue does have (in the second $60 tier) local / regional sports (like YES Network in New York).

 

For contrast, Time Warner's cost for the 70-channel package is $39.99 (for the first year) -- plus $11.25 for the HD Box, and $24.24 for DVR.  This has ESPN, but not regional sports.

 

I guess to me, Vue needs an a la carte package, or at least a more basic package, like Sling.  And maybe a PS+ discount

Let's hope this isn't the case.

 

$50-$70 monthly not worth it.  If true then Vue is going to be stillborn...

 

The sweet spot has to be the $25-$30 range.

 

A la carte' would be the preferred, but we know that's not going to happen any time soon.

 

It is the case, that's from the Vue website.

 

http://www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/playstation-vue/plans/

 

I guess for someone like me that basically uses Netflix (and my gf's HBOGo password), it doesn't offer enough to make me want to grab it.  Mostly because network TV sucks, and a lot of the rest of it comes to Netflix eventually (Walking Dead, etc.)

[+Asmodai MVC]

I don't live in New York, Chicago, or Philadelphia and I have no idea what basic cable TV service in those areas costs (heck I don't know what just basic TV service where I live costs since I get more than basic and it's all rolled together with my internet and telephone charges) so I don't know if it's competitive or not.

 

Reports are though that Apples' upcoming TV offering will be around 25 channels and cost between $30 and $40 so this DOES seem competitive with that at least.  The basic package offers more than double the channels for $10-$20 more.

 

Also Sling TV is 17 channels for $20 so the going rate seems to be a bit more than $1/channel and Sony's offering seems to come in just under $1/channel.

 

Here's the source for the Apple/Sling info: WSJ

[+Asmodai MVC]

I looked up the FiOS TV packages:

 

$10 for Local: 20+ channels/5 HD

$50 for Select HD: 155+ channels/30+ HD

$65 for Preferred HD: 235+ channels/65+ HD

$80 for Extreme HD: 320+ channels/90+ HD

$90 for Ultimate HD: 420+ channels/135+ HD

 

If you just compare the HD channels then Sony's offering looks competitive with the first three tiers.  $80 for 90+ channels and $90 for 135+ channels seem like a better deal though.  Of course in reality it depends on what those channels are and how much you think they're worth which varies from person to person.

[Showan]

I think Sling, and Vue are missing the point a little bit (at least when it comes to my household)

 

My Household is a Netflix, Amazon Prime House. Tons of shows/movies to watch for $200 a year.  Not $200 spent in 2-3months

 

Now if Vue can get somewhere in the $10-$12 per month then they are golden.  I don't need or want 55 channels.  This is why I cut the cord to begin with, paying for 100+ channels and we never watched more than 7-8 channels tops.  CBS, Fox, NBC,ABC, ESPN, Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodean were the only channels being viewed at my house.

 

Sling was a NO GO for my household as soon as I read the details, and pricing model. Sling definitely doesn't get it.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Since we have Time Warner internet, we were able to bundle basic cable for $1/mo. This is enough to give us ~25 channels, albeit no HD. That being said, we still get HD channels OTA b/c the coax cable acts as an antenna. So we have CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC all in HD (plus a few others).

 

We also use Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. it's a great combination. I just cant see tacking on $50+/mo for Vue when i dont need any of those channels...esp when Vue doesnt have ESPN!

[Houtei]

Yeah when i heard  about this awhile back i was thinking we would be able to pay something like per channel so i could pay 10-15 dollar a month for the 10-12 i watch.  I dont like having to pay 70 dollars for 80 channels i dont want just to get cartoon network or other kid channels.  Also i dont see AMC on that list or ESPN.

 

Also sling is at least setup much better.  Still have to pay for some stuff you dont want BUT its 20 a month and then there are a few different $5 packages with 4-5 channels you tack on.  So at least i can get more of what i want for less but slingtv lacks local networks but those are not a deal killer cause i get all those over the air.

[vcfan]

major problems with these tv streaming services(based on sling and ustvnow)

 

1. not reliable enough (buffering on slingtv, even with a 150 and 250mbps connections)

 

2.bitrates suck. cable SD bitrate is higher than most slingtv HD bitrates.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Now if Vue can get somewhere in the $10-$12 per month then they are golden.

All you're likely going to get in the foreseeable future for that price is a bundle of the broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc.)

Of course those are the same channels you can get with an antenna on your roof for free.

I'm almost positive no one is going to be offering per channel rates.

This is because the people who own the "basic cable" channels don't want to sell them per channel.

For example Viacom Media Networks owns Nickelodeon but they aren't going to sell you it by itself. They also own MTV, VH1, Spike, Comedy Central, etc. and they bundle them together when they allow Apple or Sony or whoever to provide this service.

Now I'm sure Sony would rather just sell you a $1 a channel but they aren't their channels to sell. Sony or Apple or Dish Networks (Sling TV owners) negotiate with Viacom Media Networks for the rights to stream their channels and there is no per channel option nor will there be anytime soon.

Now I do agree Sony should offer smaller packages then the $50. I'd like to see them make it clear who is who and have say a Viacom package so you know the reason you're getting those channels grouped is because that's how they're sold to Sony. If you don't want MTV but you do want Spike you know to complain to Viacom instead of Sony who has no power over that.

[soniqstylz]

I think Sling, and Vue are missing the point a little bit (at least when it comes to my household)

 

My Household is a Netflix, Amazon Prime House. Tons of shows/movies to watch for $200 a year.  Not $200 spent in 2-3months

 

Now if Vue can get somewhere in the $10-$12 per month then they are golden.  I don't need or want 55 channels.  This is why I cut the cord to begin with, paying for 100+ channels and we never watched more than 7-8 channels tops.  CBS, Fox, NBC,ABC, ESPN, Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodean were the only channels being viewed at my house.

 

Sling was a NO GO for my household as soon as I read the details, and pricing model. Sling definitely doesn't get it.

 

Part of the problem is that if you want NBC, you have to get MSNBC/E!/Bravo/USA/SyFy, etc (I mean, as one of these operators, and it gets forced on the customer).  NBC won't commit to a cable operator, or sling, or vue, or any other without picking up some of these other off-brand channels.  Same with ABC (Disney/ESPN/ABC Family/History/A&E)  and CBS (MTV/Comedy Central/CMT/VH1/Nickelodeon/Spike TV) or Fox (FX/Fox News).  Breaking those packages is the key to a true a la carte and cheaper overall packages.

 

edit: Asmodai beat me to it.

Yeah when i heard  about this awhile back i was thinking we would be able to pay something like per channel so i could pay 10-15 dollar a month for the 10-12 i watch.  I dont like having to pay 70 dollars for 80 channels i dont want just to get cartoon network or other kid channels.  Also i dont see AMC on that list or ESPN.

 

Also sling is at least setup much better.  Still have to pay for some stuff you dont want BUT its 20 a month and then there are a few different $5 packages with 4-5 channels you tack on.  So at least i can get more of what i want for less but slingtv lacks local networks but those are not a deal killer cause i get all those over the air.

 

ABC owns EPSN, and isn't part of the deal on Vue (it is on Sling, however).

 

AMC is coming to Vue in April (after Walking Dead is done).

[+Asmodai MVC]

Part of the problem is that if you want NBC, you have to get MSNBC/E!/Bravo/USA/SyFy, etc (I mean, as one of these operators, and it gets forced on the customer).  NBC won't commit to a cable operator, or sling, or vue, or any other without picking up some of these other off-brand channels.  Same with ABC (Disney/ESPN/ABC Family/History/A&E)  and CBS (MTV/Comedy Central/CMT/VH1/Nickelodeon/Spike TV) or Fox (FX/Fox News).  Breaking those packages is the key to a true a la carte and cheaper overall packages.

 

edit: Asmodai beat me to it.

 

ABC owns EPSN, and isn't part of the deal on Vue (it is on Sling, however).

 

AMC is coming to Vue in April (after Walking Dead is done).

 

Just some minor corrections, the overall point of this is spot on.

 

NBC is owned by Comcast, it's not the parent company itself.  I believe you probably could make a "broadcast" bundle that combines the "broadcast" channels like NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and CW without having to include anything else.  This is pretty much pointless though because "broadcast" channels are all available for free with an antenna.  As a result you're likely not going to see packages of 5 or 10 channels as you can get all that for free with an antenna (besides the big 5 listed above there are Spanish, shopping, religious, etc. broadcast channels that they could mix and match in a tiny package)

 

As soon as you add a non-broadcast channel from Comcast (MSNBC/E!/Bravo/USA/SyFy) then you have to take a bundle, they won't sell them individually.

 

Disney owns ABC, not the other way around and is similar to the Comcast situation above.  Disney will likely let you bundle ABC (broadcast) but as soon as you try to add a non-broadcast channel (Disney/ESPN/ABC Family/History/A&E) you have to take a bundle.

 

CBS does NOT own "(MTV/Comedy Central/CMT/VH1/Nickelodeon/Spike TV)".  That entire list is owned by Viacom.  They used to be the same but Viacom was spun off of CBS in 2006 I believe and now they're two completely separate companies.  I don't think CBS owns any cable channels, it's all broadcast so you could get that.  I don't believe Viacom owns any broadcast channels, so to get anything you have to take a bundle.

[George P Global Moderator]

I'm sorry guys, but $50 a month is not worth it, you might as well get cable, you get internet in the cable deal to. Don't forget this is IPTV, what's your internet bill per month? In reality you're paying the $50+ internet bill, you can get internet+cable TV for some pretty good deals that probably work out to less.

[soniqstylz]

I'm sorry guys, but $50 a month is not worth it, you might as well get cable, you get internet in the cable deal to. Don't forget this is IPTV, what's your internet bill per month? In reality you're paying the $50+ internet bill, you can get internet+cable TV for some pretty good deals that probably work out to less.

 

Not in the US.  Looking at Time Warner's pricing, the "savings" setup (first 24 months) of the Standard package is $39.99-44.99 -- this doesn't include equipment, carrier fees, taxes, or the additional $25/mo. for DVR (Vue offers cloud-based DVR).  That's for 70 channels.  Adding in the standard (15Mbps) internet package brings the total to $74.98 -- again, this is the introductory package w/o DVR, equipment, taxes, etc., and that goes up after 24 months (if you sign a contract).

 

If you get the basic Vue package with the standard internet, your cost is $84.99 (not including the cable internet taxes, etc., and that's until the cable internet cost goes up).  

 

To my knowledge, you don't pay taxes or extra fees on top of the $49.99-69.99 with Vue (or Sling, or whatever else), and generally you'd already own the equipment.

 

So it's more than I'd expect, but it's not egregious like you'd think Sony would.

[+Asmodai MVC]

So I'm curious.  All the people who are saying this costs way too much if they were to break it down as far as they can to something like below would you be interested?

If not then IPTV is likely never going to be your thing because this is broken down about as far as things are likely to go.  Obviously these prices are rough but I doubt they're double or anything extreme like that, they should be in the ballpark.

 

$4/month Local Package - local ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox broadcast affiliates.

$4/month Scripps Package - DIY, Food, HGTV, Travel

$6/month Disney Package - ABC Family, A&E, Disney, ESPN, ESPN2, History

$6/month Time Warner Package - TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, CNN, HLN

$8/month Fox Package - Fox Business, Fox News, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, FX, FXX, myNetworkTV, National Geographic

$8/month Discovery Package - Discovery, Discovery Family, Animal Planet, Destination America, Investigation Discovery, OWN, Science, TLC

$11/month Viacom Package - MTV, MTV2, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, NickToons, Nick Jr., Spike, TVland

$12/month Comcast Package - Bravo, CNBC, COZI, E!, Esquire, MSNBC, NBCSN, Oxygen, Syfy, Telemundo, TeleXitos, USA

 

So the basic Vue offering is essentially everything above minus the Disney Package (and ABC from local) for $50 instead of the $53 that would add up to ($52 if you a dollar off the local for loss of ABC).

 

I really don't think ANYONE (Dish, Sony, Apple, etc.) is going to be able to offer anything significantly better than this (and even getting agreements with all the parties to make this happen would be non-trivial though Sony seems to be most of the way there)

[soniqstylz]

If anyone wants to give the 7-day free trial a look, all you have to do is input a zipcode from NYC/Chicago/Philly

 

http://www.the-gamers-lounge.com/john-meadows/2015/3/21/how-to-try-playstation-vue-now-even-if-you-dont-live-in-the-service-area

[trooper11]

So I'm curious.  All the people who are saying this costs way too much if they were to break it down as far as they can to something like below would you be interested?

If not then IPTV is likely never going to be your thing because this is broken down about as far as things are likely to go.  Obviously these prices are rough but I doubt they're double or anything extreme like that, they should be in the ballpark.

 

$4/month Local Package - local ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox broadcast affiliates.

$4/month Scripps Package - DIY, Food, HGTV, Travel

$6/month Disney Package - ABC Family, A&E, Disney, ESPN, ESPN2, History

$6/month Time Warner Package - TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, CNN, HLN

$8/month Fox Package - Fox Business, Fox News, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, FX, FXX, myNetworkTV, National Geographic

$8/month Discovery Package - Discovery, Discovery Family, Animal Planet, Destination America, Investigation Discovery, OWN, Science, TLC

$11/month Viacom Package - MTV, MTV2, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, NickToons, Nick Jr., Spike, TVland

$12/month Comcast Package - Bravo, CNBC, COZI, E!, Esquire, MSNBC, NBCSN, Oxygen, Syfy, Telemundo, TeleXitos, USA

 

So the basic Vue offering is essentially everything above minus the Disney Package (and ABC from local) for $50 instead of the $53 that would add up to ($52 if you a dollar off the local for loss of ABC).

 

I really don't think ANYONE (Dish, Sony, Apple, etc.) is going to be able to offer anything significantly better than this (and even getting agreements with all the parties to make this happen would be non-trivial though Sony seems to be most of the way there)

I really want Sling TV and Vue to succeed simply because it could lead to better value down the road, with more a la cart options.

For me personally, neither offers the right mix of channels that I want at a better price than cable.

So looking at your list above, I immediately see that I still have to pay for far too many channels I have zero interest in to get the handful I want. Sling TV is really close. It really just needs a couple more channels to hit my needs (the $20 basic deal plus a $5 extra package would do it). So while it might not be Sling's or Sony's fault that I can't leave off channels, the fact that I can't keeps me from buying into any service.

I think Vue is going to be a tough sale if its fairly close to regular cable pricing. Smaller, cheaper packages would help, and also making it accessible across as many devices as possible will help. I very much want to try the service, but the pricing is just not there yet.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I really want Sling TV and Vue to succeed simply because it could lead to better value down the road, with more a la cart options.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more a la cart options". More that Sony is offering with Vue or more than they currently offer is certainly possible as all of their smallest packages combine multiple of the basic groups I listed.

Sling TV or Vue succeeding isn't going to allow them to break the bundles lower than what I listed though. That's entirely out of their control and if they succeed or not isn't going to cause Scripps or Disney or Time Warner or Fox, etc. to unbundle their packages. The companies KNOW that enough people aren't going to want their smaller channels enough to pay just for them so the only way for those channels to survive is to bundle them with the channels people do want.

For me personally, neither offers the right mix of channels that I want at a better price than cable.

I don't think the point is the get the same channels for less money. Cable providers (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, etc.) and IPTV providers (Sling TV, Apple TV, Sony Vue) all have to buy the channels from the same providers.

Those providers likely charge the same amount to both sets so IPTV can't really undercut Cable significantly on price. What they can do is offer smaller packages as I outlined above which are cheaper just because they're smaller. IPTV also has other advantages in that you can theoretically watch it on any internet connected device.

I think Vue is going to be a tough sale if its fairly close to regular cable pricing. Smaller, cheaper packages would help, and also making it accessible across as many devices as possible will help. I very much want to try the service, but the pricing is just not there yet.

I agree that they should have smaller bundles than they do so they have even cheaper offerings but again the price isn't going to be significantly different from Cable.

The selling point for IPTV isn't really that's it's much cheaper, it's never likely going to be, but that it gives you extra features like cloud DVR, the ability to watch on your phones, tablets, etc. and other such features.

I'm not sure Vue or Sling TV or Apple TV will be the specific ones to do it but I really do think the industry is going to go to IPTV eventually. 10 years from now I'd be surprised if anyone is still getting "traditional cable". Instead even traditional cable companies like COX will likely just be using IPTV boxes to stream the TV channels to their subscribers.

[+Asmodai MVC]

AMC is coming to Vue in April (after Walking Dead is done).

Here's the official announcement:

Source: AMC Networks Join PlayStation Vue

[Hedon]

I really want Sling TV and Vue to succeed simply because it could lead to better value down the road, with more a la cart options.

For me personally, neither offers the right mix of channels that I want at a better price than cable.

So looking at your list above, I immediately see that I still have to pay for far too many channels I have zero interest in to get the handful I want. Sling TV is really close. It really just needs a couple more channels to hit my needs (the $20 basic deal plus a $5 extra package would do it). So while it might not be Sling's or Sony's fault that I can't leave off channels, the fact that I can't keeps me from buying into any service.

I think Vue is going to be a tough sale if its fairly close to regular cable pricing. Smaller, cheaper packages would help, and also making it accessible across as many devices as possible will help. I very much want to try the service, but the pricing is just not there yet.

As it stands right now, Vue is just way too expensive. I can already get all that for less through my cable company and have better visuals.

[trooper11]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more a la cart options". More that Sony is offering with Vue or more than they currently offer is certainly possible as all of their smallest packages combine multiple of the basic groups I listed.

Sling TV or Vue succeeding isn't going to allow them to break the bundles lower than what I listed though. That's entirely out of their control and if they succeed or not isn't going to cause Scripps or Disney or Time Warner or Fox, etc. to unbundle their packages. The companies KNOW that enough people aren't going to want their smaller channels enough to pay just for them so the only way for those channels to survive is to bundle them with the channels people do want.

I mean more a la cart options as in other companies see the success of Sling and Vue, which motivates them to attempt to push the envelope and offer an even better deal.

Your exactly right that its ultimately up to the content providers to allow more channels to be split apart. My hope is that over time the content providers see more value in splitting up their content vs forcing us to buy into a big group of content. If certain content cannot stand on its own, that means it probably doesn't need to be around in the first place, or they need to rethink how that content is created/served.

I don't think the point is the get the same channels for less money. Cable providers (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, etc.) and IPTV providers (Sling TV, Apple TV, Sony Vue) all have to buy the channels from the same providers.

Those providers likely charge the same amount to both sets so IPTV can't really undercut Cable significantly on price. What they can do is offer smaller packages as I outlined above which are cheaper just because they're smaller. IPTV also has other advantages in that you can theoretically watch it on any internet connected device.

I agree that they should have smaller bundles than they do so they have even cheaper offerings but again the price isn't going to be significantly different from Cable.

The selling point for IPTV isn't really that's it's much cheaper, it's never likely going to be, but that it gives you extra features like cloud DVR, the ability to watch on your phones, tablets, etc. and other such features.

I'm not looking for cheaper content right now, just more control over what content I pay for. IPTV has nothing to do with that interest. It was never going to result in more splitting of content on its own. I agree it offers other benefits. Plus, since it makes it easier to share your service across devices, IPTV is an essential part of what a successful a la cart service would look like in the future.

So as I said before, neither of these new services offer enough value against the alternatives yet. I will try both out though when possible and hopefully they evolve into something more down the line.

I'm not sure Vue or Sling TV or Apple TV will be the specific ones to do it but I really do think the industry is going to go to IPTV eventually. 10 years from now I'd be surprised if anyone is still getting "traditional cable". Instead even traditional cable companies like COX will likely just be using IPTV boxes to stream the TV channels to their subscribers.

I completely agree. IPTV has just taken a long time to get off the ground, but it will be the future. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Sony, etc, all have been actively contributing to the growth and expansion of IPTV solutions.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Your exactly right that its ultimately up to the content providers to allow more channels to be split apart. My hope is that over time the content providers see more value in splitting up their content vs forcing us to buy into a big group of content.

I doubt that will happen beyond content providers getting so many channels in their bundle that they decide to make it into multiple subbundles. They already sort of do that as they don't require you take EVERYTHING they offer. The Time Warner/Comcast merger for example will make their list very long (Comcast right now is already pretty long) and I could see them offer like a News package where they bundle (CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.) into one bundle but I seriously doubt it will ever be the case that they sell you one channel at a time. I'm almost positive they will always offer bundles but sure if they're channel portfolio is over a dozen channels then they'll likely break that into two or more smaller bundles where they can still tie some of the smaller networks to some of the more popular ones as anchor channels.

If certain content cannot stand on its own, that means it probably doesn't need to be around in the first place, or they need to rethink how that content is created/served.

I don't think that's true at all. Selling bundles allows them to add and remove channels based off their success. Say Sony Vue has the Fox package which lets say is anchored by Fox News. Fox creates a new channel called Hound. No one has heard of Hound or any of it's programs so very few people are going to buy it a la carte. But if Fox adds it to the package that Sony Vue is offering (at no additional charge, included in the charge they already pay for the package) then people might check it out since they get in anyway and find out they DO like it. If it becomes a huge success then maybe the Fox bundle goes up in price when it comes time to renegotiate. If it flops then they can keep tweaking it's programming or just drop it from the package without much issue. This allows the content providers some room to experiment.

Also sometimes there are niche communities like lets say gamers. Now lets say someone throws a gamers channel in their bundle. The gamer channel doesn't do well enough to stand on it's own but in the bundle it does well enough to not get cancelled. Sure MOST people don't care but the minority can still be a lot of people even if it's not enough to make the channel self sufficient. Maybe people who wouldn't pay for the channel a la carte even catch a program on it here and there since they already have it anyway. I really don't think that's horrible as it allows niche content to exist kind of like a TV indie scene.

I'm not looking for cheaper content right now, just more control over what content I pay for. IPTV has nothing to do with that interest.

It does actually. It's just not in what channels you pay for but how long you pay for them. Maybe IPTV is almost exactly the same price is existing cable. In most places existing cable binds you to a year or more contract and IPTV is month to month. So if you just want to watch the season of Walking Dead live then you can subscribe to IPTV for the months it's showing new episodes each year and unsubscribe the rest of the year. That's more control over what content you pay for. If you're really lucky several of the shows you watch may have their seasons run at the same time so it wouldn't even be for just one show. That's going to force content providers to put out new content year round if IPTV catches on otherwise people will just subscribe during the new episode time and unsub when reruns are all that's out. Heck most shows only have 1 season a year with like 13 episodes. So even if the monthly price is the same as cable you might be able to pay for just 3 months of the year to get your new season and that means your yearly bill would be only a quarter of a cable bill where you're locked into the contract for the whole year.